An exclusive gaming industry community targeted
to, and designed for Professionals, Businesses
and Students in the sectors and industries
of Gaming, New Media and the Web, all closely
related with it's Business and Industry.
A Rich content driven service including articles,
contributed discussion, news, reviews, networking, downloads,
and debate.
We strive to cater for cultural influencers,
technology decision makers, early adopters and business leaders in the gaming industry.
A medium to share your or contribute your ideas,
experiences, questions and point of view or network
with other colleagues here at iVirtua Community.
Intel's Core Duo is already out. You're thinking of Conroe. The Core Duo is right about even with an Athlon 64 X2 of equivalent clockspeed, the Conroe is just... amazing. If the benchmarks hold true.
-Pikl
The core duo is no where near to the X2 - I'm amazed that you (even though you're an Intel fanboy) thinks that.
Intel's Core Duo performs very similair to an X2 at the same clock speed. Which is exactly what A_Pickle just said...
I'm amazed that you (even though you are an AMD fanboy) would think otherwise.
EDIT - I'll even quote an Anandtech article:
Quote:
We continue to see that the Core Duo can offer, clock for clock, overall performance identical to that of AMD's Athlon 64 X2 - without the use of an on-die memory controller. The only remaining exception at this point appears to be 3D games, where the Athlon 64 X2 continues to do quite well, most likely due to its on-die memory controller.
Last edited by KoolDrew on Sun Mar 12, 2006 8:40 pm; edited 1 time in total
Intel's Core Duo performs very similair to an X2 at the same clock speed. Which is exactly what A_Pickle just said...
I'm amazed that you (even though you are an AMD fanboy) would think otherwise.
EDIT - I'll even quote an Anandtech article:
Quote:
We continue to see that the Core Duo can offer, clock for clock, overall performance identical to that of AMD's Athlon 64 X2 - without the use of an on-die memory controller.? The only remaining exception at this point appears to be 3D games, where the Athlon 64 X2 continues to do quite well, most likely due to its on-die memory controller.
Ok, I guess I'm wrong. I'd always heard that Intel's Dual Cores were pathetic compared to AMD's. Ya got any links with comparisons?
I heard AMD is working on a Dual core version of the Turion
They are, it's to be released in May on Socket S1 (638 pins) platforms supporting dual-channel DDR2 memory. That's good to hear, because DDR2 consumes a lot less power than DDR. That said, I don't see much performance coming from additional memory bandwidth, Athlon 64's have never really suffered from a lack of bandwidth. The move from Socket 754 to Socket 939 didn't result in much added performance.
Quote:
pikl couldent you just find some barebones for the core duo?
What?
Quote:
Ok, I guess I'm wrong. I'd always heard that Intel's Dual Cores were pathetic compared to AMD's.
Intel has two different types of dual-cores. The Pentium D, which is literally two Prescotts, does suck relative to the Athlon 64 X2. The Core Duo, which is essentially two Dothan cores (with SSE3 support, a faster bus and a shared cache) side by side, does not suck next to an Athlon 64 X2. As a matter of fact, it's not much more expensive than the Athlon 64 X2 and it consumes much less power (31W for the Core Duo T2500, 89W for the A64 X2 3800+).
Intel has two different types of dual-cores. The Pentium D, which is literally two Prescotts, does suck relative to the Athlon 64 X2. The Core Duo, which is essentially two Dothan cores (with SSE3 support, a faster bus and a shared cache) side by side, does not suck next to an Athlon 64 X2. As a matter of fact, it's not much more expensive than the Athlon 64 X2 and it consumes much less power (31W for the Core Duo T2500, 89W for the A64 X2 3800+).
Quote:
Just the two Anandtech articles.
Oh, I didn't know that the Core Duo was Yohan. Ok. I guess Intel is finally getting the idea that it's not only clockspeed that matters :P But I don't think it's fair to compare a mobile processor to an equal-clocked desktop proc. Why not the Turion X2 and the Core Duo?
Last edited by Josh on Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
But I don't think it's fair to compare a mobile processor to an equal-clocked desktop proc. Why not the Turion X2 and the Core Duo?
I disagree, but, for all it's worth, the Turion 64 X2 wasn't out and available for testing back then (still isn't, for that matter). Additionally, I don't particularly forsee the Turion 64 X2 trouncing the Core Duo if the Core Duo is matching some of AMD's desktop chips. Current Turion 64's cannot match equally clocked Pentium M's, and the Core Duo has a slightly higher IPC than the Pentium M, due to SSE3 support and extensions to micro-ops fusion.
In the benchmark linked above, you can see the Core Duo T2500 (2.0 GHz) achieving 544 FPS, while the Turion 64 X2 at 1.6 GHz renders 417 FPS. Now that isn't fair in the least, but we can at least guage this by doing a little math.
(Core Duo FPS)/(Clockspeed of Core Duo)=(Core Duo FPS)/(Clockspeed of Core Duo)
544/2 = x/1.66
2x = 1.66(544)
x = (1.66(544))/2
x = 451.52
We can thusly assume that the 1.66 GHz Core Duo T2300 will also be slightly faster than it's dual-core Turion competitor. We'll see when more benchmarks come out, but... I'm betting the Turion 64 X2 will take mobile gaming away from the Core Duo and the Pentium M. Previously, they had a lead, most likely due to their faster memory communication relative to the Turion 64. The Turion 64 X2 changes that, as it's now getting dual-channel DDR2, so I'll bet gaming goes back to AMD on the laptop.
The Turion64 X2 is AMD's temperary solution, just until they release there new CPU design possibly coming in Q4 2006 to Q1 2007 or so?
You can say that about any cpu release - it's only temporary till the next one comes out.
Quote:
Current Turion 64's cannot match equally clocked Pentium M's, and the Core Duo has a slightly higher IPC than the Pentium M, due to SSE3 support and extensions to micro-ops fusion.
The Turion and Pentium M are really close, hard to say the Turion can't match an equally clocked Pent M.
Last edited by Josh on Wed Mar 15, 2006 9:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
The Turion and Pentium M are really close, hard to say the Turion can't match an equally clocked Pent M.
It really kind of can't. I'm not saying the Turion 64 X2 is a bad chip, I'm just saying that, clock-for-clock, it doesn't match the Pentium M. Tech Report shows a good benchmark pitting a 2.4 GHz Turion 64 against a 2.0 GHz Pentium M, and the Turion expectedly comes out on top. All the same, that's hardly relevant. The Pentium M's production is ramping down as the Core Duo is replacing it at similarly competitive prices.
The tides of CPU war will be shifted come May, with the launch of the Turion 64 X2. I'm betting that AMD will take back the gaming crown there based on the fact that the Turion 64 X2 has dual-channel DDR2 at it's disposal. The Core Duo's 667 MHz front side bus will hurt it in gaming, just as the Pentium 4's 800 MHz bus did. Still, I won't be able to tell the difference, and from the looks of it, I'll be able to do other stuff (3D animation, video encoding) a bit faster, based on the Core Duo's performance relative to full-fledged Athlon 64 X2's. That little chip never ceases to amaze me.
This benchmark indicates the math I did above is pretty much on target -- a predicted score for the 1.66 GHz Core Duo T2300 of 451.5 FPS to an actual score of 449 FPS. In either case, the equivalent 1.6 GHz Turion 64 X2 is going to be a bit slower.
Last edited by A_Pickle on Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:44 am; edited 1 time in total
It really kind of can't. I'm not saying the Turion 64 X2 is a bad chip, I'm just saying that, clock-for-clock, it doesn't match the Pentium M.
Umm, yes they can, it all depends on what you are benching LOL, don't just look at one simple Benchmark & draw your conclusions.
I would say @ the most part they are probably evenly matched. The Core Duo wins on power/battery life etc, but the Turion64 X2 is not too far behind according to its specs which I've read.
That could all change you know, when they are released to the public.
Umm, yes they can, it all depends on what you are benching LOL, don't just look at one simple Benchmark & draw your conclusions.
No offense, but did you even bother to read the benchmark? The Pentium M 760 (2.0 GHz) trounced the Turion 64 ML-37 (2.0 GHz) across the board. Only when Tech Report grabbed a Turion 64 clocked 400 MHz higher was the Turion finally able to eke out some wins. That's all on the single core front, mind you.
Quote:
I would say @ the most part they are probably evenly matched. The Core Duo wins on power/battery life etc, but the Turion64 X2 is not too far behind according to its specs which I've read.
The Core Duo and the Turion 64 X2 is a different story. With dual-channel DDR2 memory the Turion 64 X2 will basically seal AMD's lead in gaming again, as gaming seems to have a thing for memory performance. That's why the current Pentium M's trounce the current Turion 64's in gaming, it's a 533 MHz bus versus an effective 400 MHz one.
I do think that the Turion 64 X2 will retake the mobile gaming lead for AMD, but I'm not worried about it at all -- the Core Duo will perform just fine in games, and from the looks of it, it'll perform a little bit faster than the Turion 64 X2 in other benchmarks.
Digg Topic
Tag topic on On del.icio.us
Technorati Search
Post to Slashdot
